A “professional” lawyer? Well I don’t think so!

Disclaimer: I will be adding links to the evidence once I’v masked out details that could incriminate innocent third parties.

This matter has dragged on for many years. Without exception, everything I’ve had to say has been ignored, or flippantly dismissed by the New Zealand legal machine. Not once were MY interests, or the true wishes of the deceased even contemplated by the puffed up bigots, that administer our New Zealand law.

So, when I discovered that an unidentified authority had been granted to unidentified estate executors, without anyone even letting me even know that an application had been made , well… once again I wrote a perfectly open and honest request for legal advice, to an allegedly independent “professional“: a Mr. G C Knight, of 64 Cashel Street, Christchurch.

Gmail-GarryKnight2MeGary’s reply was prompt, and I was desperate, so I ignored his lecturing about my having ever dared to use the official lawyer compliant disservice. Instead I wrote a perfectly nice request to proceed . However this allegedly independent “professional” simply never replied again to any communications: When I phoned him all I ever got, was his automated message service. I left polite request, asking him to ring me back,  but like all the other “professionals” Mr Knight simply didn’t even show the common decency to let me know he would not be handling my case, so that I might find someone who would.

Eventually I went to his home.
I rang the door bell.
Nobody came, but I could tell someone was in.
I drove off, then returned on foot and rang again.
This time I was hiding behind the door frame, and he opened the door.
I just asked him to return my documents so I would not have to print them all out again for this other guy I had found... more about that one coming soon.

To Mr. Knight’s point 7, I state that my justification for using the Law Society’s “complaint service” was vindicated in full by the evidence of collusion, the evidence of out-right lies, and misdirection, and the fact I had not been informed of any of it, until the Law Society supplied this evidence. However, regardless if I were wrong, or right about the breach of professional etiquette perpetrated by Simon Stammer-Smith, my official request for Cruickshank-Pryde client complaint’s procedure had been ignored. Thus I was entitled to ask for this “independent” investigation. It is inexcusable that such should then be abused as a pretext to deny my all further professional legal services.

For the rest, one must question whether estate and inheritance law, in New Zealand really has degenerated into a petty exercise of splitting hairs about the definition of “trustees”, and whether such do, or don’t, have the right to act as executors. It seems to me that intention of the deceased should be taken into account, but I’ll get back to the underhand collusion and corruption by senior high-court registrar Mr. John Earles at a later date… while we take a short break looking at farcical extortion racket being conducted by Marlborough District Council… once again manipulating abusing our legal system.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s